President Obama blew it yesterday. The Israelis are infuriated, numerous sharp-eyed lawmakers spotted the forced concessions Obama was demanding of Israel and, if former AIPAC spokesman Josh Block is any indication, the most prominent pro-Israel Jewish group is very, very worried. So what does Obama do? He reverses course — fast!
On the BBC last night, Obama immediately nixed his definitive language on the 1967 borders and reverted to language that sounded more in tune with that of former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush:
To the BBC, the president said, “The basis for negotiations will involve looking at that 1967 border, recognizing that conditions on the ground have changed and there are going to need to be swaps to accommodate the interests of both sides. That’s on the one hand and on the other hand, and this was an equally important part of the speech, Israel is going to have to feel confident about its security on the West Bank and that security element is going to be important to the Israelis.”
The president said that the Israelis “will not be able to move forward unless they feel that they themselves can defend their territory particularly given what they have seen happen in Gaza and the rockets that have been fired by Hezbollah.”
That is as sure a sign as any that the speech was an overstep, and a misstep, that the Israelis are infuriated and that Obama is now in a pinch.
What to make of all the liberal Jewish groups and pundits who fawned over the speech and insisted there was no change in U.S. policy contained in Obama’s statement on the 1967 borders (which is a misnomer; there is only the 1949 armistice line)? They have, to the extent they had any credibility, discredited themselves as reliable translators to Jews and Americans at large of the peace process. Whether through ignorance or through an insatiable need to defend a liberal president at all costs, they leapt into the fray to deny that Obama said anything damaging at all. The proof of Obama’s misstep is his swift backpedal, which, I suspect, will continue today.
A prominent pro-Israel liberal, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) was one of the first to sound the alarm, saying he liked hearing that Israel was a Jewish state, but Obama missed the boat on several key items:
“First, I am unclear as to why the President did not recount the three conditions of the Quartet, comprised of the United States, the United Nations, the European Union, and Russia, for dealing with Hamas. (1) Hamas must recognize Israel’s right to exist, (2) Hamas must renounce terrorism, and (3) Hamas must commit to all of the agreements signed by Israel and the Palestinians. Those conditions, laid down in 2006, establish the foundation of our policy toward Hamas and must not be disregarded or glossed over. Further, we cannot expect Israel to negotiate with a Palestinian Authority which has Hamas, a terrorist organization, as a working partner until Hamas accepts these conditions.
“Second, the 1967 armistice lines were simply not defensible, and Israel must not be made to return to them. Moreover, United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which forms the basis of any future peace between Israelis and Palestinians, does not require Israel to withdraw to the 1967 lines in exchange for peace. The President is correct that land swaps built into a peace agreement could make Israel’s borders safe and secure, but make no mistake about it – such territorial adjustments would be very significant so that Israel would no longer be 9 miles wide at its narrowest point.
“The reason that there has been no progress toward a peace agreement is that the Palestinians have refused to sit down with Israel and have used every excuse under the sun to refuse to negotiate. President Abbas, with all his talk of moderation, has been anything but. It is time to tell the Palestinians that the only way to statehood is through negotiations at the bargaining table, not through unilateral actions.
“The President still has the opportunity to elaborate on these points when he speaks on Sunday about the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and I, for one, will listen carefully to what he has to say.”
It is interesting to note which pro-Israel groups and individuals were entirely silent yesterday — AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) [See update below] and a fleet of other strong pro-Israel Democrats (e.g., Reps. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), Howard Berman (D-Calif.) and Steve Rothman (D-N.J.). They no doubt were slumped in their chairs, slack-jawed. They probably would be tremendously relieved if the president in essence excised his offensive comments from further discussion. If not, they will, as in the settlement-freeze controversy, be forced to choose between partisan loyalty and being true to their convictions.
As for Obama, whether he cloddishly used language without understanding its full import or whether he intended once again to stick it to Bibi Netanyahu, the damage is done. The Israelis are reminded that Obama is not a president who truly understands the Jewish state and can be counted on to defend it.
Jewish voters who were nervous before are likely more nervous now. And just imagine, in a second term Obama won’t necessarily care what either the Israelis or pro-Israel voters have to say. There will be no backpedals then.
UPDATE (11:32 a.m.): Sen. Lieberman has issued a statement that must have the White House reeling. After nice words about the rest of the speech he bashes the president on Israel:
“Unfortunately, President Obama’s important and constructive speech embracing and supporting the peaceful, democratic revolutions in the Arab world was also undermined by an unhelpful and surprising set of remarks about Israel and the Palestinians that will not advance the peace process and in fact is likely to set it back.
“While the President made some strong statements about the “unshakeable” support for Israel’s security and rightly criticized the Palestinian pursuit of a symbolic statehood declaration at the UN in September, his unilateral call for negotiations on the basis of the 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps — the first time any president has adopted this position — was profoundly ill-advised. As in the case of the President’s counterproductive demand for a settlement freeze two years ago, unilateral statements of this sort do nothing to bring the two parties back to the negotiating table and in fact make it harder for them to do so. They also damage the relationship of trust that is critical to peacemaking.
“In particular, the President’s remarks have revived and exacerbated fears in Israel about the commitment and understanding of this Administration with regard to their unique security situation. The fact is, while the exciting and hopeful new reality in the Arab world is the Arab spring, the newest reality in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is not hopeful. It is the threatening new unity government between the leadership of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, a group which the U.S. government has long designated as terrorist because it is committed to violence and the destruction of Israel.
“In the days ahead, I hope President Obama will make clear Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with a Fatah-Hamas unity government until Hamas accepts the Quartet conditions. I also hope that the President will make clear that his Administration recognizes the 1967 borders themselves are no longer an acceptable endpoint for negotiations because they do not allow Israel to defend itself, and that any peace agreement must reflect new realities on the ground, including the major new Israeli communities that have grown up since 1967, and the need for an extended presence by the IDF in the Jordan River Valley.
“In the past few months, the forces of freedom and self-determination have begun to move inexorably through the region. It is in that movement where we can find the greatest hope for peace between neighbors in the region, including Israelis and Palestinians.”
There is violence between Moslems and Moslems (Shia and Sunni), Moslems and Copts in Egypt, Moslems and Serbs, Moslems and Russians in Chechnya, Moslems and Chinese, Moslems and Christian in the Philippines, Moslems and non Moslems in Thailand, Moslems against Christians in Indonesia, Moslems against black Moslems in Darfur, Moslems against non Moslems in Sudan, Moslems against non Moslems in Nigeria, Moslems and Hindus in Kashemir, Moslem terror attacks in London and Madrid, Moslem attacks against Americans in NY, Washington DC, a destroyer in Yemen, embassies in Africa and Obama still calls Islam a peaceful religion. Why is that the violence between Moslems and Israel occupies so much attention?
No, I was referring to our resident Lon Cheney, who pretended to be an American but in reality is from Montreal. Ted has retired his comment since and at least the persona he was using when I replied to him.
Yamit83
Just curious…are you implying because a person is Canadian, they shouldn’t “give a damn”?
The problem isn’t Arabs, it’s the ideology that most of them embrace: Islam.
If the Muslims had conquered N. America, there wouldn’t be any reservations or tribal lands — they would’ve been completely annihilated. There are no Assyrian or Coptic tribal lands or semi-autonomous states in the Mid-East (the teaching of the Coptic language is outlawed in Egypt). There are no Hindu tribal lands in Pakistan or Bangladesh (and VERY few Hindus left). There are no Buddhist tribal lands in Afghanistan (and no Buddhists left AT ALL). I doubt there will be any Assyrians or Copts left in the Mid-East in the near future, w/the possible exception being Israel. There is no compensation whatsoever for the victims of Islamic genocide anywhere and there never has been.
In #11 above I posted that thousands of people are having dreams and visions of America being attacked, not Israel. Here is one I just found and I’m posting it because it is so typical of others.
Here is another by a Moderator of a large Christian email list. It is older but important because he writes that so many have sent him similar dreams and he didn’t even post them.
J.R. Nyquist and others have specialized in the subject of an attack against America. I have found dreams and visions like this going back to 1878. Ch. 50 & 51 of Jeremiah talk about end times Great Babylon, an empire that is destroyed in the vengeance of the Lord and that the Lord raises up the spirit of the Medes against her. That empire is likely America.
That didn’t help. Now I feel fuzzy all over.
Shy Guy,
I think you’re just peachy 🙂
Teshuvah, you said,
Venus, Mercury and Mars, along with Earth, are “inner planets”, which move quite fast around the sun; so alignments of these happen quite often. The outer planets are Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, and they move slowly (Jupiter orbits every 12 years, and Neptune every 165 years). Alignments between the inner planets ad ONE of the outer planets, such as Jupiter, are therfore not “odd” at all. Alignments of the outer planets are far less common.
I dabbled in Astrology about 40 years ago, and have since looked back at the significant events in my life and tried to line them up with transits of the planets. There was nothing especially interesting happening at those times, other than expected, usual aspects. Sometimes I even figured the star charts wrong, and thought I saw something significant, only to find something no more significant after correcting the error. If you want to know what I mean, just read the weekly Astrology reading in the funnies, and select a random sign. It will probably fit your circumstances as well as any other.
There are certainly genuine signs in the heavens from time to time; but interpreting them is a completely different matter. At the time of Obama’s speech, which I take to have been at 12:15 PM on 19 May 2011 in Washington, DC, here were the planetary positions (approx):
Sun 28 deg Taurus 12th house
Moon 26 deg Saggitarius 6th house
Mercury 5 deg Taurus 11th house
Venus 4 deg Taurus 11th house
Mars 6 deg Taurus 11th house
Jupiter 27 deg Aries 11th house
Saturn 11 deg Libra 4th house
Uranus 4 deg Aries 10th house
Neptune 1 deg. Pisces 9th house
Ascendant: 3 deg Cancer
Midheaven: 11 deg Pisces
The conjunction of Mercury, Venus, Mars and Jupiter was roughly trine (120 deg from) the transiting moon at the Saggitarius/ Capricorn cusp. This is not an omenous configuration; trines are generally thought of as “smooth sailing”. The truly “serious” aspects had nothing to do with the planets you mentioned: Saturn in Libra was opposed to Uranus in Aries; and because both planets move so slowly, that aspect will be around for a while.
Uranus (which is associated with tearing down existing structures) entering into Aries (ruled by Mars, which is associated with violence) could signify a period of uprisings. Note that this entry into Aries has been with us for a few months, and did not coincide with Obama’s speech. You might say, Aha! The Arab Spring! So would I, because we both have 20:20 hindsight.
For what it’s worth, these two planets are both square Pluto, which, I’ve already said, I don’t even reckon with because it’s not a real planet. The moon was transiting in Pluto’s neighborhood, which means that it, too, entered into a “T” relationship with Uranus and Saturn; and the planetary cluster you mentioned was trine to it. What does that mean? Obama’s speech was good for the Arab Spring? Or visa versa? Since the lunar transit happened a few hours AFTER the speech, it seems more likely that the FEEDBACK to Obama’s speech was more important to the Arab world than the speech itself.
Don’t get too excited in your conclusions. As I said, I’m prone to math errors. NONE of the above are terribly significant alignments; and neither was there anything significant two days later, when the world was supposed to have ended.
CAUTION: Astrology is for entertainment only. If you take it seriously, you will go mad (or perhaps are already).
Well, I for one am fed up with being called “white”.
I’m much closer to “peach mauve”.
This could be the start of something big!
Georg von Starkermann,
I AM Iroquois. That’s what our enemies called us. I believe it means “snakes”. I am not offended by the term “Indian”, because that’s what my white ancestors called my red ancestors. NOBODY used the term “Native Americans”. During the 1780s, the Iroquois confederation was essentially destroyed, and upstate NY was flooded by whites. Citizenship had virtually no demographic significance in that area at that time.
Get your facts straight, you Hienie.
It is the dawning.
As I recall, you are a…
I kinda agree with Dershowitz that what’s important about Obama’s speech is what was missing. By talking about the 1967 lines, he is calling on Israel to make concessions but there was no call for the Arabs to make concessions. (Bibi is of course correct that for there to be a voluntary peace agreement, the Arabs have to give up their dream of immigrating to Israel en masse.)
My read on this is that Obama supports Israel because he has to because that’s American politics. But at the same time, he desperately wants to be loved by the Arab world so he is avoiding telling the Arabs that they need to make these sorts of concessions. Of course that will never work. For there to be any hope of peace, the Arabs’ delicate self-esteem will need to be damaged a bit.
There was an odd solar alignment this past week where four planets lined up in a row, Jupiter, Venus, Mercury and Mars. Scientists were discussing it. I am not an astronomer or astrologer and if that means something, I don’t know what it is. As a result of Obama’s speech, you have 3 domed buildings lined up in agreement. Catholics and Muslims are against Israel and now Obama causes America to agree with them. They are the DOME on the Dome of the Rock, the DOME on the Vatican and the DOME on the White House. This is bad news for the righteous because that dome is occultic and goes back to pagan religions which is exactly what Catholicism is under the covers.
Rude Guy (17). As I recall you are a Catholic. Are you a Holocaust denier as well and do you deny the Catholics put on Nazi uniforms? Anyone who doesn’t know there is a conspiracy is an idiot.
Documented source?
And by documented source, I don’t mean one of your wacko conspiracy sites which quotes a nobody who published his/her own book on Lulu making such a claim out of thin air.
damage control? you should have heard WH press secretary Jay Carney trying to do damage control after the Obama/Netanyahu ‘pool spray’ (what they call a press audience for statements after the private meeting) on Friday.
But, we all have to wait for Obama’s speech at 10:30 am EDT, live on C-Span1, at the opening plenary session of AIPAC’s annual conference. Will he finally be able to utter the words “defensible borders”?
PM Netanyahu gets the banquet slot on Monday 7-10 pm, and then makes his speech to the joint congress on Tuesday, with Obama in Europe.
Last year, Hillary gave the AIPAC speech to very subdued applause. In less than ten hours, I shall be waving the soles of my flip-flops while watching C-Span1 (live cable coverage also at JLTV)
btw, my comment is on Rubin’s thread, under a different name. the leftist attacks on her reveal the nature of what remains of Obama’s base.
Georg von Starkermann:
Ghandi was less of an Indian than the North American variety. Ghandi was a Bharati. The Brits (I believe) called the country that was named “Bharat” over the ages, “India,” and it stuck.
I’m not sure if anyone has pointed out to mr. Obama that these people that are called Jews, they come from Judea, which in every historical atlas is located on the west bank of the river Jordan. Thats the pre-1967 borders….by about 2,500 years!
Tzvi-Gad
Obama has shown his true colors! that’s who is is, and always will be-anti-jewish!
To Bland Oatmeal.
The Native Americans of North America located in New York State were given full US citizenship back in the 1780’s for their support in fighting the British. The Seneca Nation was granted full citizenship in 1786. They are a part of the Iroquois Confederation. Please get your facts straight, and do not call these people Indians. Ghandi was an Indian, he was however not a member of the Iroquois Confederation, not called an American Indian.
Dick Schwanz (6) says:
In Joel 2:28 it says that G-d gives dreams and visions. They are to help, guide and let us know who is in control and what is coming up ahead. I have followed dreams and visions on the internet for years after having a dream myself of America being attacked by Asian soldiers. The ones dealing with missiles and rockets raining down from all directions are on America, not on Israel. The overview of those dreams and visions shows the missiles and rockets are from Russia, China and a consortium of 14 Muslims and a few S. American nations.
Yamit, you said,
You are correct. On most issues, you cite historical precedent and note that Israel is being singled out for exceptional expectations. There are historical precedents for countries to be unfairly treated, such as Rome’s treatment of Carthage in its final days; but these involved victor cats playing with defeated mice. Israel is not a mouse, and will not be defeated. Granted, it is a small and thin country — small and thin, like a viper.
There are some precedents about how to deal with a large minority population:
1. The American Indians were a majority in certain areas for periods of time: In upstate NY, for instance, before the Revolution; in much of the Nothwest Territories before the early 1800s; in Wisconsin Territory, Nebraska Territory, Indian Territory (now Oklahoma), etc. Our solution to governing those places was:
a. The Indians were not given citizenship
b. Majority (white) settlement was encouraged and protected
c. Hostile Indians were defeated and forced to live on reservations
d. When an overwhelming white majority was obtained, the territory was granted statehood
e. The Indians were eventually given citizenship, but only when they became an insignificant minority
2. Puerto Rico
It has “commonwealth” status, which gives it a certain autonomy; and its citizens are free to come and go into the US proper. Settlement by, and US citizen rights of, Americans from the Mainland are not to be interfered with, and the US handles P. R.’s foreign affairs and security.
The Puerto Rico solution works, only because
a. the place is completely separated geographically from the US,
b. Puerto Ricans in the US proper are an insignificant minority, and most importantly,
c. The Puerto Ricans have demonstrated a willingness and ability to live peaceably with Anglo Americans.
When Papua New Guinean independence was being pondered in the 1960s, some suggested a Puerto-Rican-style “commonwealth” arrangement; but that notion was put down because PNG was a third as large as Australia (not to mention, extremely primitive).
3. Quebec
Quebec is fully integrated into Canada, which is, like Israel, officially bilingual.
The big difference between the Quebecois and the Palestinian Arabs, is that the former have, like the Puerto Ricans, demonstrated a willingness and ability to live peaceably alongside Anglo Canadians. Another important difference, is that neither the Franco Canadians nor the Anglo Canadians consider it a religious duty to control all the land, as do both the Israeli Jews and Moslems.
Lieberman’s plan, in my opinion, of combining the Israeli and “Palestinian” Arabs into one autonomous region, has the greatest chance of success. Before even that can be implemented, though, the Arabs need to demonstrate an ability and willingness to live side-by-side with the Jews. Jews MUST be allowed to freely live in Arab areas, with full rights as Israeli citizens and without molestation, and the Jewish majority must control foreign relations and defense. It is only the Arab Moslem state of mind, that prevents this practical solution from happening in the near future (as Lieberman correctly puts it, not for decades).
If the Arabs continue to violently oppose solutions such as this, they run the distinct danger of being physically restrained and reduced; and the “International Community” (a euphemism for the Jew-haters of the world) will have to fight if they don’t like it. The Bible says they will, of course.
I definitely believe that Mr Obama is an antisemite islamist,a hypocrit anisemite islamist who fights terror when put under pressure and backs it when he thinks he can
ISRAEL IS A FULLY SOVEREIGN NATION: If it feels threatened by Iran, why must it require Uncle Sam’s permission to attack?
Hymie, You are right it shouldn’t require “Uncle Sam’s” approval but since America controls the skies over Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Iraq, along with advanced radar in our Negev that only the Americans control. Turkey is now in the enemy camp as is Egypt, it sort of poses some tactical and logistical problems. America refuses to give give us friend / foe codes.
America could reduce all of Irans’s known sites to rubble using conventional ordinance within a few days of concentrated strategic bombing and destroy the missile and rocket sites of Iran as well.
Israel can’t do a credible job using conventional weapons and would need to nuke most of the vital sites.
So tell me about your American full plate. Killing primitives natives with AK47″s at a cost of trillions is more important to your empty mind than an Iran with Nukes? Just have the FED print up a few more trillions in digital money, that should cover any costs. Your Canadian anyway so why do you give a damn?
In 2002 the Saudi Plan was first to mention ’67 lines with swaps. I have always believed that the plan was drawn up by the State Department and the Saudis. Connected to the invasion of Iraq.
This Plan was incorporated into the Roadmap in 2003 just one week after the invasion
The US, our closest ally, prevents us from attacking Iran, which will acquire nuclear weapons within the next year or so. The US Administration is therefore okay with a nuclear Iran, which wants to wipe Israel off the map.
“The Road Map,( Bushes’ plan), demanded that we cede the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, and Judea. If there are Jewish territories on earth, those are the ones. It would be sort of like Russia abandoning the Kremlin, or America selling the White House.
Maybe some painful concessions are historically normal? Not for victors. There is not a single instance in world history when an attacked country won the war, conquered the land of its enemy, and then relinquished it out of goodwill. Israel has been attacked half a dozen times in six decades; taking over the enemy’s land is a historically standard retribution.
Is there any benefit for Israel in agreeing to concessions, however bizarre? No, they are clearly suicidal. No state can possibly exist within eight-mile-wide borders, let alone a state besieged by three hundred million enemies”.
The international attitude toward Israel is clarified by their other demands. Israel has to fight nicely, send her children into urban combat, and even in combat somehow inquire about a target’s terrorist affiliation before shooting. Israel has to be liberal—that is, abandon Judaism, which demands strict morality. Israel has to open herself to foreign influence, thus forgoing her uniquely Jewish lifestyle. Israel has to be democratic—which means, in plain English, to allow Arab voters to subvert the Jewish state. Israel has to be tolerant of minorities and accept Arabs as one third of her population. What will remain of the Jewish state when all those orders are implemented?
The peace process is just another means of Holocaust. More:
When did the call for land swaps arise and what lawful basis, if any is there to keep calling on Israel to make such concession in the pursuit of peace?
Sweet are the uses of adversity… The good part is that Obama has clarified his role as an antagonist to Israel…There are many who heretofore were not convinced about how much antipathy Obama felt toward the Jews… Now they have a better idea just where his sympathies lie…
Watch how the Kapos begin sweeping up…
Prescott Bush, the father of George Bush, Sr., was arrested by the FBI for aiding and abetting the enemy because of his trading with Hitler’s regime in WW2. Why can not this charge be laid against Obama for his monstrous betrayal of Israel (and America)?